alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Paul Durham, Finance Director and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ PAUL DURHAMFinance Director and Chief Accounting OfficerApril 15, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1
Certification By

David M. Demshur, Chief Executive Officer

of Core Laboratories N.V.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
I, David M. Demshur, Chief Executive Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report").

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: February 21, 2008
/s/ David M. Demshur____ 
David M. Demshur 
Chief Executive Officer  
****
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00703-CV

In re Tina Hutcherson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM MILAM COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and the emergency motion to stay

the trial court’s declaratory judgment proceeding is dismissed as moot. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Filed: November 16, 2022
(121 App. Div. 611.)

#### CRISENZA v. AUCHMUTY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Dismissal—Rights of Attorney.

It was improper to refuse to dismiss a complaint for lack of prosecution, as expressly authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 822, and rule 36 of the general rules of practice; plaintiffs attorney’s only excuse being that his client had settled the claim, and he having taken no steps since the joinder of issue to enforce his lien, though advised by the answer of the settlement.

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Luca Crisenza against Ellen S. Auchmuty. From an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for neglect to prosecute, defendant appeals. Reversed, and motion" granted.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Harold S. Recknagel, for appellant.

Nelson L. Keach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The action was begun by the service of a summons on January 15, 1904, and the issue was joined on March 2, 1904. *336The case has never been noticed for trial, and, junior issues having been reached and tried in their regular order, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, as provided for by section 822 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rule 36 of the general rules of practice. The only excuse offered by the plaintiff’s attorney is that his client had settled and compromised the claim, and, indeed, the answer, verified on the 2d day of March, 1904, alleges compromise of the claim and the execution and delivery by the defendant of a general release.

It is suggested that, in spite of the fact that the plaintiff’s attorney has taken no steps in the action since the joinder of issue and made no move for the purpose of enforcing his lien, the case ought to be kept upon the calendar and treated as a live issue, solely for the attorney’s protection. There seems to be no good reason for this. The attorney’s rights, if he had any, accrued upon the compromise and settlement of which he was advised by the answer served. The facts do not differ essentially from those passed upon by the learned Appellate Division in the Second Department in Russo v. Darmstadt, 116 App. Div. 887, 102 N. Y. Supp. 209; and for the reasons there stated the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           4,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,189)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,477
<PP&E>                                         163,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,250)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 336,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,967
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,816)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   336,065
<SALES>                                        301,014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,014
<CGS>                                          264,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  292,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (835)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (434)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,609)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,609)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.14)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Grace Colon, Appellant, v City of New York Department of Education et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 628]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered November 29, 2010, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award dated December 7, 2009, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CELR 7511, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitration award was made in accord with due process, is supported by adequate evidence, and is rational and not arbitrary and capricious *(see City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham,*75 AD3d 445, 450 [2010], *affd*17 NY3d 917 [2011]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, “[h]earsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination” *(Matter of Gray v Adduci,*73 NY2d 741, 742 [1988]). Each of the specifications pertaining to the incidents involving students was supported not only by consistent, albeit unsworn, statements by several students who witnessed the incidents, but also by testimony from either the school principal or the school psychologist, or both, who investigated the incidents, including consulting with the students involved. In her own testimony, petitioner generally acknowledged the incidents, while offering differing exculpatory accounts thereof. The hearing officer’s credibility findings in favor of respondents’ witnesses are entitled to deference *(see Matter of Douglas v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*87 AD3d 856 [2011]). We note particularly that petitioner’s accounts of the incidents were uncorroborated. The testimony of respondents’ witnesses supports the hearing officer’s determinations as to the remaining specifications.

We do not find the penalty of termination so disproportionate to the multiple specifications upheld charging petitioner with verbal and physical abuse of students and faculty members as to shock our sense of fairness, even considering the mitigating factors of petitioner’s recurrent health issues and the recent death of her mother *(see Matter of Kaufman v Wells,*56 AD3d 674 [2008], *lv denied*13 NY3d 707 [2009]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 3321KU).]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38400-38401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15393]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11467]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Afterlives: Recovering the 
Lost Stories of Looted Art'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Afterlives: Recovering the Lost 
Stories of Looted Art'' at The Jewish Museum, New York, New York, and 
at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are 
of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition 
or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9eedfbfdeaf7f1f0acaaaba7deedeaffeafbb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98ebfdfbecf1f7f6aaacada1d8ebecf9ecfdb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street, NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of

[[Page 38401]]

Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-15393 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Louis Prichard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                              ___/s/ Louis Prichard_______
                              Chief Executive Officer

                              March 30, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



94
#### GIOR et al., Respondents, v. KELLY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Edward P. Gior and another against James W. H. Kelly.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the event.
|   | 1.     | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 fully      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and                                           |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | 2.     | The      information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal      year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| /s/      Hua Meng                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Hua      Meng                                                        |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                         |
| (Principal      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.****333-211788,333-211790,333-186533,333-169926, and333-136316) of our reports dated March 14, 2018 on (i) the consolidated financial statements of Medallion Financial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and for each of the threeyears in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017 and on the selected financial ratios and other data for each of the five years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the consolidated schedules of investments in andadvances to affiliates as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016; (ii) the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017; (iii) the financial statements of Medallion Bank as ofDecember 31, 2017 and 2016 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017; and (iv) the consolidated schedules of investments as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, all of which appear in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2017. 

New York, New York

March 14, 2018
#### Anthony J. Medico, Petitioner, v State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination dated February 22, 1984, which revoked petitioner’s motor vehicle operator’s license because of his refusal to submit to a chemical breathalyzer test following his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Respondent’s determination to revoke petitioner’s driver’s license was supported by substantial evidence. Although petitioner denied ever having driven the vehicle, it was within the province of the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles to resolve issues of credibility, and he was therefore not required to accept petitioner’s account of what had transpired *(see, Matter of Foster v Tofany,*31 AD2d 987; *Matter of Gleason v Melton,*79 AD2d 853). Moreover, the testimony of the arresting officer supports a finding that he had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was driving while intoxicated, and that petitioner unequivocally refused to submit to a chemical breathalyzer in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, although he had been given appropriate warnings. Accordingly, we confirm the respondent’s determination *(see, Matter of Story v Hults,*27 AD2d 745, 746, *affd*19 NY2d 936; *Matter of Murray v Tofany,*33 AD2d 1080). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2019255EN.01001902.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 25 April 2019 — SC Romenergo SA and Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

(Case C-339/19)

(2019/C 255/28)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: SC Romenergo SA and Aris Capital SA

Respondent: Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

Question referred

Must Article 63 et seq. TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) and Article 87 of Directive 2001/34/EC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a national legislative framework (in the present case Article 2(3)(j) of CNVM Regulation No 1/2006) which establishes a legal presumption of concerted practice in respect of holdings in companies whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and which are treated as alternative investment funds (known as ‘financial investment companies’) with regard to:

| 1. | persons who have carried out or who are carrying out economic transactions together, whether related or unrelated to the capital market, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

persons who have carried out or who are carrying out economic transactions together, whether related or unrelated to the capital market, and

| 2. | persons who, in carrying out economic transactions, use financial resources which have the same origin or which originate from different entities which are involved persons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

persons who, in carrying out economic transactions, use financial resources which have the same origin or which originate from different entities which are involved persons?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).

(2)  Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1).

---
First Department,

February, 1986

(February 4, 1986)

#### Naomi Schwartz, Individually and as Executrix of Henry Schwartz, Also Known as Herman Schwartz, Deceased, Respondent, v Andrew Pete et al., Appellants.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irwin M. Silbowitz, J.), entered on October 31, 1984, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages, unless the plaintiff within 20 days after service upon her attorney of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor to $1,500,000 less 20% thereof representing the jury’s finding of comparative fault making a total of $1,200,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Rosenberger, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Wingrey Holding Co., Appellant, v City Assessor of the City of Yonkers et al., Respondents. (And Another Proceeding.)

—In tax certiorari proceedings, petitioner Wingrey Holding Co. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), entered June 20, 1984, which, *inter alia,*awarded legal fees to its former attorney, Richard Sussman, in the amount of $3,318.03 and to successor counsel, Farrauto, Berman & Fontana, in the amount of $18,833.44.

Order affirmed, with costs.

There being no dispute as to the amount of the fee otherwise due, and no conflict of interest in the joint representation of the owner, Wingrey Holding Co., and the mortgagee in possession, Eastern Savings Bank, in the tax certiorari proceedings by the firm of Farrauto, Berman & Fontana, the award of a legal fee to that firm was entirely proper. We also find proper the award to attorney Sussman. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1 (W0232455).DOC








Exhibit 10.1







Amendment to Amended and Restated

Employment Agreement







THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of December 18, 2009, is to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of June 17, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”) by and between Peoples State Bank, Wausau, Wisconsin (the “Bank”) and Peter W. Knitt (“Mr. Knitt”).  All capitalized terms used herein which are not otherwise defined have the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement.




WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement contains a definition of Change of Control that erroneously differs from the Change of Control definition contain in an Amended and Restated Change of Control Severance Agreement for Mr. Heier entered into on the same date as the Employment Agreement; and




WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement also contains a definition of Change of Control that differs from the Change of Control definition used in the Restricted Stock Agreements of PSB Holdings, Inc., the parent company of the Bank.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements of the parties contained herein, it is agreed as follows:




1.

New Paragraph 8(e)(iii).  Paragraph 8(e)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and the following is substituted therefore:




(iii)  the occurrence of a transaction resulting in the acquisition of PSB or the Bank by an entity other than PSB or a 50% or more owned subsidiary of PSB through purchase of assets, or by merger, consolidation or otherwise, except in the case of a transaction pursuant to which, immediately after the transaction, PSB’s shareholders immediately prior to the transaction, either directly or indirectly, own at least 60% of the combined voting power of the surviving entity’s then outstanding securities with respect to the election of the directors of such entity in roughly the same proportions as prior to the transaction; or




2.

Full Force and Effect.  As amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and Mr. Knitt have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.




PEOPLES STATE BANK







By:  PATRICK L. CROOKS

PETER W. KNITT

        Patrick L. Crooks

Peter W. Knitt

        Chairman of the Board